![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
A call to arms in the battle for a voice.
First things first. The New York Times On The Web has dropped Ted Rall from its line up of political cartoons. Primarily because they were tired of dealing with flack from dittoheads, but I've also noticed a bit of a shift to the right in their editorial policy generally. It was apparent in the debate I excoriated in a previous post, Lisa Bumiller being one of theirs. It is apparent with the addition of David Brooks to the line up of commentators, and it is apparent with the move striking Rall (whose work they were able to present for free; they paid him nothing) from the lineup of cartoons on their web edition.
This is disturbing to me because Rall's voice is a voice from the left, from the far left, that has been one of the strongest voices of dissent under this administration. And I cannot help but think that that may be one of the reasons he is being struck. He says unpleasant things that a lot of Americans don't want to hear but need to. He asks us to entertain the possibility of the unthinkable, so that the fact that an action is unthinkable does not become a cloak behind which the person who takes that action can hide. His art sucks, but it's no less pleasant to look at than McCoy's, and he knows his art sucks. He also gave me a much needed belly laugh after the extended episode of hate speech that was the State of the Union address.
For that reason encourage you, all of you, yes, even the conservatives, libertarians, and libertines among you, to appeal to the New York Times to keep his feed on their website. Not because you agree with him, but because the moment we start silencing certain views while privileging others, democracy, which depends upon an informed electorate becomes a sham.
You can e-mail the New York Times ombudsman at public@nytimes.com
This is disturbing to me because Rall's voice is a voice from the left, from the far left, that has been one of the strongest voices of dissent under this administration. And I cannot help but think that that may be one of the reasons he is being struck. He says unpleasant things that a lot of Americans don't want to hear but need to. He asks us to entertain the possibility of the unthinkable, so that the fact that an action is unthinkable does not become a cloak behind which the person who takes that action can hide. His art sucks, but it's no less pleasant to look at than McCoy's, and he knows his art sucks. He also gave me a much needed belly laugh after the extended episode of hate speech that was the State of the Union address.
For that reason encourage you, all of you, yes, even the conservatives, libertarians, and libertines among you, to appeal to the New York Times to keep his feed on their website. Not because you agree with him, but because the moment we start silencing certain views while privileging others, democracy, which depends upon an informed electorate becomes a sham.
You can e-mail the New York Times ombudsman at public@nytimes.com
no subject
no subject
Ted Rall's Cartoons and NYTimes.com
On Tuesday, March 2, cartoonist Ted Rall posted this on his "Rallblog":
If you read my cartoons at the New York Times website, you may have noticed a hole on the comics page where my work used to appear. It seems that, under the dismally lame cover of 'moving in a different direction,' my cartoons were the only feature out of 10 (all supplied by Universal Press Syndicate) that the Times saw fit to drop.
Rall went on to assert that although he believes a newspaper (or, implicitly, a Web site) has the right to publish what it wishes, he feels that The Times has dropped his work from NYTimes.com because "they're annoyed by receiving so many e-mail complaints about my work -- all of them motivated by partisan politics."The Times, of course, has a different story. Len Apcar, the editor responsible for NYTimes.com, issued a statement that explained his position. "After two years of monitoring cartoons by Ted Rall," Apcar said in part, "we have decided that, while he often does good work, we found some of his humor was not in keeping with the tone we try to set for our Web site."
Here is the full statement:
After two years of monitoring cartoons by Ted Rall we have decided that, while he often does good work, we found some of his humor was not in keeping with the tone we try to set for our Web site. As of late February, his cartoons are no longer available through our Web site. Readers wishing to read his cartoons can find them at www.tedrall.com.
While NYTimes.com and its parent company support the right of free expression, we also recognize an obligation to assure our users that what we publish, no matter what its origin, does not offend the reasonable sensibilities of our audience.
NYTimes.com is continually evaluating the tools and services we provide. We appreciate your feedback and will share it with our colleagues.
Separately, Apcar told me that "I enjoy cartoons and I certainly like to laugh but Ted Rall's work often didn't pass the laugh test. Worse, it was offensive too often."On principle, I hold with Apcar. Although I happen to think that Rall, while ferociously partisan, can be absolutely brilliant, a lot of his work just doesn't fit in The Times's self-defined environment. If you look at some of the cartoons NYTimes.com chose not to publish in the months before pulling the plug altogether, and if you're familiar with the somewhat demure language and imagery the paper prefers, you will immediately see the disconnect. The following urls will point you to Rall pieces that Apcar and his associates objected to over the past few months, and whether or not you find them offensive (warning: you well might), they certainly aren't Timesian:
www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2004/01/12/
www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2003/11/20/
www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2003/12/01/
They are clearly at odds with the tone of a paper that shrinks from language that wouldn't bring a blush to the face of most 10-year-olds I know.
But I'm tempted to differ with Apcar's solution. Why not just continue what he and his colleagues have been doing, rejecting Rall cartoons that don't meet Times standards? It's worked up until now. Then again, I'm not the one who would have to make the choice every day, and sometimes things like this can just make your head hurt. It's not as if Ted Rall is disappearing from the Web; if you want your daily dose, go to www.tedrall.com. It's a choice you can make, just as Len Apcar has made his.
</td></tr>So, Rall is good for an exchange of ideas...
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040308&s=chait030804
Re: So, Rall is good for an exchange of ideas...
But Rall, knowing that large swaths of the progressive agenda are at stake, as the conservative agenda seeks to return us to "separate but equal" education, back alley abortions and turn of the century sweatshops, would not run, and has condemned Nader for doing so.
If Nader wants to raise awareness about his issues, let him write, and cartoon, and buy PSA's or whatever. But dividing the opposition vote does nothing to save the environment or protect the consumer or any of those other things Nader says he's about, and everything to undermine them.
no subject